Navigation

Brexit: What happens now?

Now MPs have backed a delay, Theresa May has to request an extension to Article 50 from the EU. Assuming the other member states all agreed, Brexit would be postponed. Theresa May says this should be for no longer than three months. But she has also raised the prospect of a much longer extension if MPs won't back her deal. There are still plenty of possible outcomes. 1. No deal at a later date Voting to delay Brexit would not mean that leaving the EU without a deal was ruled out forever. If the EU won't grant a delay, or if the UK and the EU cannot sign off a deal during any extension, then this would still be the default ... (full story)

Oh really? Here I am thinking PM May needs show true colors of her feathers. Is she just the messenger girl from Brussels or can she deliver on Brexit as the referendum called for and PM May is capable of negotiating a Deal that comes thru for Britain.
Her deal keeps getting knocked out by her own party so why is that? Does she not confer with her own Caucus or does she represent Brussels?

Another agreement needs to be created and now it's in the hands of the parliament! and the EU already said they will not make another deal...and can members of parliament manage to agree on something to create another deal? They look like a bunch of school children from what I've seen so far in their debate.

- U.K. has not found an acceptable solution to the Irish border. This is because what keeps Ireland united at this moment, is the European Union (Schengen agreement).

- How can you take control of your borders and restrict imigration and in the same time to keep the Irish border frictionless? This is impossible. We may call it a paradox.

- The only way of having border control and in the same time have frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, is to implement the backstop and let Northern Ireland in the customs union.

This would literally mean that Ireland to become united, something which England strongly rejects.

So you see, U.K. finds itself in it's own mess and has to make a simple decission:

Either separates completely with a hard border, or abdicates of Northern Ireland by implementing the backstop or it chooses to remain in the E.U.

Things are foggy in the British Parliament and I believe E.U. will have no interest in supporting an extension of the Brexit based on foggy arguments.

U.K. may choose what it wants and believe it may rule the World. However it does not mean E.U. will obey with what U.K. wishes ("extension"), because the last thing E.U. wants is a politically unstable country within the Union.

And Britain will take it. It will take it hard as it never took it before. This is my prediction.

I understand what you say on the irish matter but to say that ''the last thing E.U. wants is a politically unstable country'' is also a paradox given the political instability in France, Italy and Germany. I believe that the UK should just leave and create their own trade deals. If the EU want to exercise controls over the transfer of goods etc, then let them do so. This is merely a temporary incovenience

My humble uninformed opinion: Democracy is government by the people for the people, isn't it? If the elected rulers are so divided and so fighting each other like now, is it not good leadership to refer the whole thing back to the electorate (who elected them in the first place), so they can now make a much better informed decision to leave or not? Whatever the future holds will be for the the citizens who are now at a young age and not the old grey-haired people now making decisions. If mistakes are made now, older people will not experience it much, but the youth of today and their kids will pay for it. So let them decide if this whole thing is worth it and must/must not happen.

Pointless no one changed their mind since -most people made their mind up well before any ref
the only way to do it is an election a ref would be very bad
the people gave a direct instruction in the biggest vote ever, but parliament was remain and still is

My humble uninformed opinion: Democracy is government by the people for the people, isn't it? If the elected rulers are so divided and so fighting each other like now, is it not good leadership to refer the whole thing back to the electorate (who elected them in the first place), so they can now make a much better informed decision to leave or not? Whatever the future holds will be for the the citizens who are now at a young age and not the old grey-haired people now making decisions. If mistakes are made now, older people will not experience it...

There is huge ignorance about the reason for the backstop in the UK, its media, its Parliament, and also in these comments. Without an understanding of the Belfast Agreement and the DUP this will not change.

Let's not complicate too much things which are quite simple: - U.K. has not found an acceptable solution to the Irish border. This is because what keeps Ireland united at this moment, is the European Union (Schengen agreement). - How can you take control of your borders and restrict imigration and in the same time to keep the Irish border frictionless? This is impossible. We may call it a paradox. - The only way of having border control and in the same time have frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, is to implement the backstop...

Ignored

What I´m reading here is full of holes, is opinion, and not based on facts. I´ll just pull one thing out to emphasize my point.... "This would literally mean that Ireland to become united, something which England strongly rejects." The Good Friday Agreement is a legal binding agreement which acknowledges the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, reflecting the wish of the majority of citizens. This is fact and any change to this which would bring about a united Ireland could only come about if and when a majority of people in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland wanted it. In this instance, the British government would be bound to hold a referendum, and honour the result. And, that´s the only way, no "if´s" and "but´s" about it. Just one other point, at the end of your sentence, you´ve used the word "England". The agreement is not with England, it´s with the United Kingdom. Please don´t put stuff up that´s misleading others.

My humble uninformed opinion: Democracy is government by the people for the people, isn't it? If the elected rulers are so divided and so fighting each other like now, is it not good leadership to refer the whole thing back to the electorate (who elected them in the first place), so they can now make a much better informed decision to leave or not?

Ignored

i think not, coz truth is born in dispute, i see you prefer decisionos should be taken like in USSR by party.

Quote

Disliked

Whatever the future holds will be for the the citizens who are now at a young age and not the old grey-haired people now making decisions. If mistakes are made now, older people will not experience it...

People don't understand what is going on, such decision should be counted by using game theory through counting exoduses.
imho

{quote} What IÂ´m reading here is full of holes, is opinion, and not based on facts. IÂ´ll just pull one thing out to emphasize my point.... "This would literally mean that Ireland to become united, something which England strongly rejects." The Good Friday Agreement is a legal binding agreement which acknowledges the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, reflecting the wish of the majority of citizens. This is fact and any change to this which would bring about a united Ireland could only come about...

This young girl has been brainwashed into believing that climate change is the greatest threat to civilization when it is mostly hype (smoke & mirrors). All one has to do is look to the past 300-500 years. Go to the history books and you will learn that the UK was a wine producer! HOW? Because the ambient temperature was much higher than it is now.

{quote} Please tell me what you are talking about? This young girl has been brainwashed into believing that climate change is the greatest threat to civilization when it is mostly hype (smoke & mirrors). All one has to do is look to the past 300-500 years. Go to the history books and you will learn that the UK was a wine producer! HOW? Because the ambient temperature was much higher than it is now.

Ignored

Absolutely right sir, there's climate change and we know that temperatures variate time-to-time, maybe 200 and 200 years the weather changes have changed our heavenly Earth. I believe that UK still produces other licours than wine.

{quote} Absolutely right sir, there's climate change and we know that temperatures variate time-to-time, maybe 200 and 200 years the weather changes have changed our heavenly Earth. I believe that UK still produces other licours than wine.

Ignored

My point is that temperatures on the Earth vary. Look at these headlines:

Attached Image

So HOW can we go from one extreme to another in less than 45 years?

Also where were the climate change activists protesting the ice age in the 70's and 80's? Too many people have swallowed the global warming Kool-Aid thanks to the dumbing down of the education system.

{quote} My point is that temperatures on the Earth vary. Look at these headlines: {image} So HOW can we go from one extreme to another in less than 45 years? Also where were the climate change activists protesting the ice age in the 70's and 80's? Too many people have swallowed the global warming Kool-Aid thanks to the dumbing down of the education system. Just saying....

Ignored

Hopefully you're right... although... my sport, you and me could be in trouble if you're wrong. This is not fx trading where only fake money is at stake.

My humble uninformed opinion: Democracy is government by the people for the people, isn't it? If the elected rulers are so divided and so fighting each other like now, is it not good leadership to refer the whole thing back to the electorate (who elected them in the first place), so they can now make a much better informed decision to leave or not? Whatever the future holds will be for the the citizens who are now at a young age and not the old grey-haired people now making decisions. If mistakes are made now, older people will not experience it...

Ignored

Well now....... The people shall speak whether the politicians are listening or not!
I say out with the old, in with the new. New political parties are needed with modern thinking and this may become reality with the independents now in the House..... REFERENDUM OR ELECTION.... no more no less.
The people must govern!

My humble uninformed opinion: Democracy is government by the people for the people, isn't it? If the elected rulers are so divided and so fighting each other like now, is it not good leadership to refer the whole thing back to the electorate (who elected them in the first place), so they can now make a much better informed decision to leave or not? Whatever the future holds will be for the the citizens who are now at a young age and not the old grey-haired people now making decisions. If mistakes are made now, older people will not experience it...

Ignored

Democracy is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. Wikipedia

The US and UK don't have a democracy - and rightly so. There are too many people who should not have a say in government policies. WHY? If you can't handle your own personal finances, family, then why should you have a say into how the government, which is 1000% more complicaed, operate?

Mob rules is a terrible form of government because then the lowest common demoninator voters just elect politicians who will give them the most, ie food stamps, housing allowances, free phones, etc.,

If the voters gave the elected politicians a task to perform and they cannot agree on how to do it, should they not refer it back to the voters who by now knows a whole lot more than they did in the first vote? Your PM has openly refused to give the electorate a say if they are happy with no deal, no Brexit or a paralyzed House hopelessly divided. This gathering of 1m voters is by no means "mob rule", but a vote of displeasure in the current state of affairs. May will NOT let them vote, so they demonstrate in the streets! And rightly so! So: Referendum, election or no Brexit? The PEOPLE?VOTERS?TAX PAYERS (read those that cannot run their own affairs as you say, too) must decide now because the current government is not performing their duties and is not even in a majority anyway....

you just said its representative democracy,
so US and UK do have a democratic process,
iron it out it's exactly the same thing!
think it through it's still the same people voting for the person who cannot control their money
only = collective result
The collective result is very good like a chart

Now Eu isn't a democracy because that's watered down to nothing, it's so big it cannot be changed and no one really answers back to each country

{quote} Democracy is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. Wikipedia The US and UK don't have a democracy - and rightly so. There are too many people who should not have a say in government policies. WHY? If you can't handle your own personal finances, family, then why should you have a say into how the government, which is 1000%...

I don't accept that reasoning,
the only reason its representative is there are too many people to have an indervidule say
if the country were 50 people then it could be direct if you wanted ,no matter who they are

this country was already heading anti-EU for many reasons, no point on blaming Cameron for bringing the ref as the political force from the people actually made it happen
people who blame him make me laugh like the public are too stupid

In the 2014 European Parliament elections, UKIP received the greatest number of votes (27.5%) of any British party, producing 24 MEPs. The party won seats in every region of Britain, including its first in Scotland.

If the voters gave the elected politicians a task to perform and they cannot agree on how to do it, should they not refer it back to the voters who by now knows a whole lot more than they did in the first vote? Your PM has openly refused to give the electorate a say if they are happy with no deal, no Brexit or a paralyzed House hopelessly divided. This gathering of 1m voters is by no means "mob rule", but a vote of displeasure in the current state of affairs. May will NOT let them vote, so they demonstrate in the streets! And rightly so!...

In 1992 the Danish voted NO to the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. Everyone agreed that democracy was paramount and that the result would stand. Then the EU promised to give Denmark some opt-outs. The slavishly pro-EU Danish government then held a second referendum, which it won.
In 2004 the EU panjandrums agreed the grandly named “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”. This sought to sweep away all previous treaties and replace them with a single, unified constitution. That would be a constitution like any other unified state has.
Ratification got under way with Parliaments in several countries pushing it through with big majorities. Spain held a referendum that approved the treaty. Then France held a referendum, which ended with a vote of 55% NO, followed by the Netherlands which gave a resounding 61% NO. Referendums were promptly cancelled in Poland, Portugal, Ireland the UK and Denmark. EU leaders promsied to “respect” the referendum results and called for a “period of reflection”.
That period of reflection ended with the Lisbon Treaty, which was virtually identical to the failed Constitution. This time it was pushed through the French and Dutch parliaments without a referendum. So much for respecting the results.
Then the Lisbon Treaty ran into trouble when referendum in Ireland saw a 53% NO vote. In June 2008 the EU Parliament held a debate on the Irish result. Speaker after speaker declared that they would “respect the result”. But of course, they did not. Just a year later the slavishly pro-EU Irish government held a second vote. This time the EU leaders issued a series of high sounding promises about legal guarantees. This time the Irish voted YES.

Then the Lisbon Treaty ran into trouble when referendum in Ireland saw a 53% NO vote. In June 2008 the EU Parliament held a debate on the Irish result. Speaker after speaker declared that they would “respect the result”. But of course, they did not. Just a year later the slavishly pro-EU Irish government held a second vote. This time the EU leaders issued a series of high sounding promises about legal guarantees. This time the Irish voted YES.

Ignored

And WHAT a decision THAT was ! I bet they are delighted that the government completely ignored the will of the people.
Perfect example why referendums shouldn't be taken seriously at all in fact they should be banned all together.

they set themselves up as a tax haven EU will catch up soon enough
You really believe referendums should be banned, I personally want more as long as its not exactly the same question before they're carried out
It would solve such apathy
Heres the thing
Lisbon would never ever pass in the UK , which would have saved such entanglement as today
that's the start of something right there yet to see where it all leads... an EU army is the worst idea ever talk about
whos in charge here

{quote} And WHAT a decision THAT was ! I bet they are delighted that the government completely ignored the will of the people. Perfect example why referendums shouldn't be taken seriously at all in fact they should be banned all together. https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp

they set themselves up as a tax haven EU will catch up soon enough {quote}

Ignored

If you consider Britain and the Crown Dependencies/Overseas Territories (Cayman Islands/ the Isle of Man) as a single entity (which you should since the funds almost exclusively flow from these territories to the city of london) the UK is at the top of TJN’s financial secrecy index as the number 1 threat to global financial transparency. So Ireland is a tax haven but it would be strange if the EU would go after Ireland while the EU allowed the UK to be neck-deep in on it for the last 40 years or so.

A surge in aircraft imported into Ireland by leasing companies that send the jets out on loan to airlines was also among the main reasons for the economic growth. Lease operators based in Ireland account for about 20% of the global market, with sales of €7.8bn (£6.6bn).

Michael Connolly, a senior statistician at the Central Statistics Office, said: “What happens here is that an entire balance sheet of a company relocating to Ireland from somewhere else is included in our capital stocks or our international investment position.

So what’s not to like?
Nobody believes our GDP numbers any more, not after a 26 per cent jump in 2015, which was famously derided as “leprechaun economics”. Even the CSO cautions against viewing last year’s 7.8 per cent jump as a reflection of real economic activity.
There are several reasons for this but perhaps the biggest issue stems from multinationals moving intellectual property assets such as copyrights, patents and trademarks here – a move that seems to have been prompted by a global clampdown on tax avoidance.
The numbers involved are so large that they distort our national accounts, mangling our headline growth figures in the process.

{quote} If you consider Britain and the Crown Dependencies/Overseas Territories (Cayman Islands/ the Isle of Man) as a single entity (which you should since the funds almost exclusively flow from these territories to the city of london) the UK is at the top of TJN’s financial secrecy index as the number 1 threat to global financial transparency. So Ireland is a tax haven but it would be strange if the EU would go after Ireland while the EU allowed the UK to be neck-deep in on it for the last 40 years or so.

First three measures
The first three measures come into force as of midnight on Monday with the two remaining measures governing the exploitation of mismatches in tax laws of different jurisdictions, and exit taxation rules, coming into force on January 1st, 2020.
The Finance Bill, which was published here in October, shortly after Budget 2019, introduced controlled foreign company rules locally as required by the directive. It also saw the implementation of a 12.5 per cent exit charge on company migrations from the Republic and the allocation of assets from here to another jurisdiction.

The European Commission has fought consistently and for a long time against aggressive tax planning. The battle is not yet won, but this marks a very important step in our fight against those who try to take advantage of loopholes in the tax systems of our member states to avoid billions of euros in tax,” said EU taxation commissioner Pierre Moscovici.